Bava Kamma 47b

בבא קמא מ״ז ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 47b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 47b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Responsibility for damage in someone else's חצר: permission, accepting guarding, and רב's rule that 'it should not have eaten'

Overview

The amud finishes the משנה about bringing an ox into a homeowner's חצר. Without permission, the homeowner is פטור for harm done to the ox, and the ox's owner pays for damage it causes. With permission, the בעל החצר is responsible, while רבי says no one is liable unless he clearly agreed to guard. The גמרא finds that the משנה seems to switch between רבי and the רבנן. רבי זירא says different clauses come from different teachers. רבא says the opening is all רבנן, because permission puts guarding only on the בעל החצר. Next, רב rules that a produce owner pays only if the animal slipped on the produce, not if it ate it, since 'it should not have eaten.' The גמרא defends רב against three ברייתות: the poison case, the woman grinding wheat, and the ox that ate wheat and died. Finally it asks whether accepting guarding also covers damage from outside, and tests this with a ברייתא about an outside ox eating produce. That discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (27)

1. StatementAn ox brought in without permission: who pays for goring?
2. StatementThe ox falls into the homeowner's pit
3. StatementWith permission, the courtyard owner is responsible
4. Statementרבי: no one is liable without agreeing to guard
5. QuestionAn inference from the pots case: whose view is it?
6. ResponseIt is רבי's view
7. ChallengeThe next clause seems to follow the רבנן
8. ChallengeThe last line is רבי again, so the משנה switches back and forth
9. Resolutionרבי זירא: different parts were taught by different תנאים
10. Resolutionרבא: the whole first section follows the רבנן
11. Statementרב: liable only when the animal slipped, not when it ate
12. QuestionWhy is he exempt when the animal ate?
13. ResponseThe animal should not have eaten
14. Challengeרב ששת challenges רב from the poison ברייתא
15. ResolutionProduce is exempt too; the ברייתא's lesson is about Heaven
16. ResolutionThe 'poison' is a plant that looks like food
17. ChallengeA challenge from the woman grinding wheat
18. ResolutionThe woman's case is about slipping, just like the משנה
19. QuestionWhy was the challenge even asked?
20. ResponseThe missing word 'by them'
21. RejectionThe other side: the wording makes no difference
22. ChallengeAn ox eats wheat in a courtyard and dies
23. ResolutionPermission means he accepted guarding the ox
24. QuestionHow far does accepting guarding go?
25. ProofTrying to prove it from an outside ox eating produce
26. RejectionNo, the ruling is about the ox's owner
27. ChallengeTesting the idea that the ברייתא means the owner of the ox